Meeting of the Parliament 21 May 2014
This is an important debate and I wish that we had more time for it.
Yesterday, as the convener said, the committee went up town for a breath of fresh air. Our visit to the Court of Session was a breath of fresh air and I was very impressed. I take the opportunity to thank the Lord President, Lord Gill; the chairman of the Judicial Institute for Scotland, Lord Malcolm; Sheriff Welsh and Sheriff Duff for their welcome. It was a privilege to see the high-quality training environment that now exists for our judges. The Judicial Institute is fit for the 21st century, with training that uses new technologies and facilitates collaborative learning. I was really impressed to hear and see the judicial system reforming itself and reflecting the aspirations of the Scottish people in a modern Scotland.
The Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill was introduced to respond to the same aspirations. The bill seeks to implement the recommendations of the review led by Lord Gill. The tone of the review’s conclusions was strong:
“Scottish civil courts provide a service to the public that is slow, inefficient and expensive.”
It also said:
“The court system has to be reformed both structurally and functionally.”
Committee members agreed with most of the bill and supported its general principles. On page 30 of our report, we stated:
“On balance, we consider that the proposed increase in the privative jurisdiction of the sheriff court from £5,000 to £150,000 may be too great a leap.”
Let me repeat that statement: £150,000 may be too great a leap. I was the one in the committee who was not convinced that £150,000 was too great a leap. That is why paragraph 144 starts with the words “On balance” and why we thought of qualifying the first sentence with the words “may be”.
On 22 April, Sheriff Principal Taylor came to the committee and made his point very clear. He said that those who have an axe to grind would have us depart from the bill in a number of areas. One such area is that of the sheriff court having a privative jurisdiction of £150,000.
Sheriff Principal Taylor, the Lord President, Citizens Advice Scotland and the consumer champion Which? all said that £150,000 is appropriate, and I seek an assurance from the Scottish Government that all views will be considered.
Let me be clear: we heard a lot of talk of data and percentages to justify reducing the proposed threshold when we took evidence, but Sheriff Principal Taylor answered the concerns from the outset. He told the committee:
“When we selected that figure, my approach was not to consider what percentage of cases should be moved from the Court of Session to the sheriff court; my starting point was to settle on a figure for cases that I consider to be appropriate for determination by a sheriff.”
More important, the sheriff principal concluded with the following statement:
“It is a judgment call.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 22 April 2014; c 4516.]
A judgment call—one that I can understand. Members might recall how I spoke in another debate about the Scottish legal system’s difficulty in accepting far-reaching reforms.
I agreed with Lord Gill when he said that the present limit is utterly ridiculous, and I might add that it should have been increased a long time ago. Citizen Advice Scotland’s briefing could not be clearer when it states:
“Reducing the limit from the £150,000 limit proposed could, in practice, undermine many of the proposed reforms to court structure and specialisation.”
Here we are. The question remains: is £150,000 too great a leap? I do not think so, which is why I ask the Scottish Government and the minister to consider all views on the matter. Scotland’s civil courts system must be replaced with one that is more effective and efficient, and I am delighted that all members of the Justice Committee support the general principles of the bill.